The NRA Is Facing A String Of Defeats In The States

Muskets vs muskets is one thing. Personal firearms vs modern military weaponry is rather another. If they know where you are, you're dead. Smile at the drone, hey? Power asymmetries usually don't go well for the weaker.

Britain's unruly North American colonies (south of the orderly St Lawrence) happened to be a sideline in a global war inadvertently begun by George Washington some years before. Support by Britain's enemy France then allow us to crow about our revolution now. Oh, those muskets! (Most in the war were supplied by France.) Drink some Rhone wine in celebration.

They had cannon too... :rolleyes:
Just as it is wrong to focus on the "morality" of a group, is is wrong for you to continually focus on the weapon instead of the issue.
 
Even better example, is it moral for public sector unions to be lobbying the government that they negotiate with?
 
are you feeling attacked? i mean it was you who came into my thread and said some... well...um... not much, actually. quit being a sniveling child and grow up.

No, but you are getting personal and angry. I have to assume that some of the things I have said are thus valid and incontestable if this is the level that you have reached.
 
No, but you are getting personal and angry. I have to assume that some of the things I have said are thus valid and incontestable if this is the level that you have reached.

oh do shut up with the sanctimonious bullshit. the only thing you've contributed to the thread is keeping it at the top.
 
Damn near all forms of speech and expression, especially of a political nature are.

So yes.

What did you think it means?

And you still haven’t given any reason why the NRA shouldn’t have anything to do with politics, other than your being more and more obviously anti-free speech.

Considering you don’t think people should even be able to express their support for 2A rights, I question your alleged support for 2A rights. Do you support gun bans of any kind, hand gun, “assault weapon” or otherwise?

I see we've gone from bullshitting to scurrying off with your tail tucked like the typical, anti-civil rights, leftist degenerate we all knew you were to begin with.

Good chat though, coward. :)
 
I see we've gone from bullshitting to scurrying off with your tail tucked like the typical, anti-civil rights, leftist degenerate we all knew you were to begin with.

Good chat though, coward. :)

no one is beholden to answer your psychotic ramblings.
 
he seems to be way beyond learning about what they actually provide.

I think a lot of these old rightist men are that way, especially in terms of women's healthcare.

It's not innocuous. I think they choose to be ignorant and don't really care. They lack empathy for anyone beyond themselves. Just like their Fuhrer.

They fail to grasp the simple concept of how everyone in society is connected.
 
Last edited:
except for the buzzfeed article linked contains actual facts.

Lol...facts...from Buzzfeed.

Hilarious.

As for the NRA, they believe in protecting the second amendment. They know that gun control advocates can't amend the constitution to get rid of the second amendment so they introduce laws to get rid of it one small piece at a time (which is blatantly unconstitutional btw.) That's why the NRA fights against every new gun legislation that's introduced.

If politicians attempted creating legislation to dismantle your 1st amendment right incrimentally, I'd expect another group like the ACLU to fight just as hard against that as the NRA does with gun legislation.
 
Last edited:
So what I've gotten from this so far is that it's ok to lobby as long as they lobby for something you agree with.
Not at all surprising of course.
 
Abortion is legal and you can't arm fetuses, no matter how much the NRA wants to.

Whether or not they are killing people is opinion not fact.

I never said that it was illegal, but that's the blunt reality.

Recently, I heard about some of the details of how an abortion is done when the fetus is essentially fully formed. An instrument that is like a pliers is inserted. It tightly grips an arm or leg, twists it off, pulls it out, and then continues with the next limb.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with a double homicide.
 
Last edited:
I never said that it was illegal, but that's the blunt reality.

Recently, I heard about some of the details of how an abortion is done when the fetus is essentially fully formed. An instrument that is like a pliers is inserted. It tightly grips an arm or leg, twists it off, pulls it out, and then continues with the next limb.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with a double homicide.

Still opinion on whether or not it's killing people. Nothing short of a fetus using sign language to communicate and say it's aware is ever going to change that. The entire abortion debate is 2 opinions.
 
Whether or not they are killing people is opinion not fact.

It's a fact. If you were to perform a DNA test on the tissue it would come back as undeniably Human.

You use the term "people" so as to give yourself some wiggle room I suppose. Why not go with "nonviable tissue mass?" A two year old is a nonviable tissue mass without extraordinary care. The only difference being that one in in utero and the other is postpartum.

As for me? Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Yet I am pro-choice. I see no point in criminalizing an act that women have been performing over all of recorded history.
 
Back
Top